Routine Idea and more

[ThomASS]

Today I was picturing using the movement/structure of a floor routine in gymnastics with the footbag. For routines I think it would add a relatable aspect for the non footbag spectator!

On a non routine idea, I bet more tricks and concepts could be explored with the extra momentum!

Vaseks King of Footbag has a great guilt/tripless string at 3:30. Just think of that evolved in 10 years! I think of ps whirls with hangtime travelling 10 feet. A parkour corkscrew butterfly swirl! Toe set misty flipping torque...

One downside that I see is that footbaggers have yet to become inverted...(insert joke here) Right? We have done handstands! But has anyone done flip tricks? Actually I think I remember a backflip toe stall? And Dave Boats Beyers doing backflips with the soccer ball!


What do you think?

[F[uns]tylin' Eclectic]

Really cool idea, Ryan. Nick Pasquarello is a gymnast/footbag player and I know he can do all sorts of flips. I'll send him this link to see what he thinks about it.

[Pasquar]

easier said than done. I've seen the backflip and though I have yet to try it, I may be able to pull it off. incorporating flips in footbag routines would be really difficult. plus, in gymnastics, the floor exercise has hundreds of springs to help out with all the craziness.

are you talking about doing acrobatic stuff in footbag routines or doing footbag stuff in a gymnastic floor routine??

I'd love suggestions. It's something I've pondered but haven't really tried with any sort of dedication yet (as I'm still far away from being guitless)

[ThomASS]

I think kicking on a spring floor would be great for training.

At first I was just thinking of footbag tricks using the ideas of lines to cross a performance area.

Then came the more parkour/footbag combination idea.


Well you are a great person to have kicking. Do you have any gymnastics videos up?

[Outsider]

One prominent system of JUDGING footbag freestyle performances (what we usually refer to as a "routine", though I've come to dislike the term -- I think we should call "routines" a "performance" or a "2-minute performance" or a "choreographed performance" or something like that...) was known as the "Formula Based Judging System". It was more complex than the current judging system -- it was so complex that it was really only used at World Championships, and, perhaps at the West Coast Championships (no longer running ).

I liked that old complicated system -- but it took a judging panel of about ten people to generate specific scores for technical and artistic aspects of a performance, and then one or two more people to coordinate the judging and calculate the scores...

3 of those people were just assigning scores for the performance aspects, or, the artistic merit, as we might call it now. And there were several categories of performance that a competitor was graded/scored on. I can't remember all those categories off the top of my head right now, but they were something like "movement and music" to score a competitor's choreography with the music - were they playing on beat?..., and there was a category called something like "creativity and originality" -- I think that one is more-or-less self-explanatory. There was also a category called "Floor: Planes and Travel", and this was a performance scoring category where players received a score based on how well they used the available area of the performance stage, including the length and width of the stage (the area) and also the HEIGHT above the stage. That is, the "travel" part referred to moving around the length and width of the stage, and the "planes" was meant to refer to the various heights above the stage that a competitor's performance might use. I would take that to mean that including things like FLYERS and forehead and face stalls were a more effective artistic use of your performance area (the planes above the floor) than only using clipper and toe stalls...

In any case, some competitors had very deliberate ways of moving from one part of the stage to the other. They would "walk" from corner to corner of a square stage as they performed, presumably to give a better performance and to increase their performance scores in the "Floor: planes and travel" category. From my own point of view, standing in the middle of the floor with no deliberate movement or just wandering at random as you shred is not as "performy" a deliberately moving from one side of the stage to the other and back as you freestyle.

Eric Wulff's performances sometimes really stood-out to me a very clear example of a competitor moving from one area of the stage to another. Sometimes he did this AS HE WAS FREESTYLING, and sometimes he did this as he was just doing basic kicks in-between his combos... Sometimes I thought his movement around the floor was a little too obvious and mechanical, but none-the-less it was better than somebody like me who just wound-up on one side of the stage or another with no plan just as a result of randomly moving as I shredded...

Eric, by the way, WAS a competative gymnast for a time. I don't really know any details about his gymnastics career, but I would say that the FLOOR ROUTINES part of gymnastics were clearly an influence on his approach to a freestyle footbag routine.

[C-Fan]

Back in the 80s, Jack Schoolcraft would apparently do a backflip in his routine, and catch it in his lap as he was flipping. I've never seen it, but apparently this was his signature move.

All of my routines I make a point to do a moving combo at some point, as well as flyers. In both cases, it is to try and make more use of the stage to keep things visually interesting. I think I started doing this because of the old judging system, but now I just do it because I think it's more interesting for the audience.

[Corey]

Trials should be an actual event.

[Tjuggles]

I have been thinking about freestyle routines and I feel like a different style of routine could be implemented. When I think of a routine, I think of dance routines. I feel like if you are playing with the music, and the music has similar sections that repeat, then certain sections in your routine should repeat. For example, you could have:

1. Introduction
2. Chorus
3. Verse 1
4. Chorus
5. Verse 2
6. Bridge
7. Chorus

Where there would be 7 sections, however only 4-5 unique sections; the introduction would be, well the intro, the chorus section would be very similar if not the same throughout the routine, the verses would be where you incorporate different links, the bridge is where you would use the stage, and the final chorus is where you finish the routine. (This is just one basic form. Of course the possibilities are many.) If all of this happened on beat with the music, it would seem like a full choreographed routine, to me at least.
I am not saying that the current routines should be changed, but what I notice is that there are cues that people hit, and the songs that they use have lots of different sections, however I don't really see a circular effect in the routine, more linear; the routine starts, simple tricks building up to more difficult tricks, a shuffle section, and a final trick to end. It would be cool I think to see similar tricks repeating in similar sections. Also, perhaps it would be easier to understand by non-shredders if they saw similar things happening at similar sections in a song.

I have seen some people do this to an extent (Clavens off the top of my head), but I haven't seen it very often (I could just not be looking...), at least not the way I am thinking of.

Finally, I think that this style also complements the old judging system that Jon mentions:

1.Movement and music (basically moving with the music freestylingly)
2.Creativity and originality (incorporating unique links that connect with the song)
3. Planes and travel (using the stage, flyers and what not are incorporated of course.)

...as well as the current judging system.

If this conversation has already been discussed elsewhere, I apologize. I searched for routines and this is the only topic that I found titled routines. Also, if what I said is already the norm and I just don't see it, oops.

[Outsider]

Finally, I think that this style also complements the old judging system that Jon mentions:

Just for the sake of the history lesson, and for historical accuracy, I've just remembered to dig-up my old rule-book, and:

"The presentation judges evaluate the competitors in five categories:
1. Music and Movement: considers the relationship between the player(s) and the music, including the timing of moves and music, the rhythm of the routine, and the start and finish of the routine.
2. Floor, Planes & Travel: considers the use of the floor area and the use of different kicking planes.
3. General Form: considers the flow and confidence of the players(s).
4. Distribution and Linking: considers the linking of moves together into combinations and the distribution of moves among the add categories.
5. Personality & Originality: considers the players' appeal to the audience and the artistic impression, including style and originality."

and my own comentary on the above categories, in case anybody had basic questions about what the heck those categories mean... :
1. Pretty obvious really -- does a competitor play on beat or not, and do they hit moves on their musical queues or not, and does their routine start and finish on musical queues or not.
2. What I said already -- do they purposely use the whole performance area, or do they just stand in place, or do they wander randomly, AND do they use multiple planes above the floor, or are all their moves at about the same height.
3.. Speaks for itself again, I think --- do you execute your moves well and play smoothly, or are your move thin/sloppy/slurry/froggy and is your general form herky-jerky.
4. Sort of obvious, again, but, just to clarify -- a competitor can get credit for using a large variety of moves in the technical/composition category, but that technical/composistion category sort of DOESN'T CARE if you do all your ducking moves at the same time, AND THEN all your spinning moves, AND THEN all your Unusual Surface moves, etc. This 4th category in the presentation section of your score DOES CARE if you put your ducks and spins and flyers all into one nice string or not. Presumably, it is better to show that you can link different kinds of moves together, although personally I think there is alot to be said for "theme" runs...
5. Should be obvious again, but just in case -- a performer who can look up and smile and seem relaxed and make eye with their audience is usually a better performer than one who plays largely oblivious to the audience or too nervous to look up... This same category is where one might be given credit for doing something unique or unexpected, be it a certain kind of trick, or some sort of performance prop like fireworks, breakdancing, chugging an entire bottle of liquor, etc...

This is just MY interpretation of those categories -- they are open to other interpretations. I'm still practicing my chugging, though.